28 ideas
10859 | A set is 'well-ordered' if every subset has a first element [Clegg] |
Full Idea: For a set to be 'well-ordered' it is required that every subset of the set has a first element. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
10857 | Set theory made a closer study of infinity possible [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Set theory made a closer study of infinity possible. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
10864 | Any set can always generate a larger set - its powerset, of subsets [Clegg] |
Full Idea: The idea of the 'power set' means that it is always possible to generate a bigger one using only the elements of that set, namely the set of all its subsets. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.14) |
10872 | Extensionality: Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Extension: Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
10875 | Pairing: For any two sets there exists a set to which they both belong [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Pairing: For any two sets there exists a set to which they both belong. So you can make a set out of two other sets. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
10876 | Unions: There is a set of all the elements which belong to at least one set in a collection [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Unions: For every collection of sets there exists a set that contains all the elements that belong to at least one of the sets in the collection. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
10878 | Infinity: There exists a set of the empty set and the successor of each element [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Infinity: There exists a set containing the empty set and the successor of each of its elements. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: This is rather different from the other axioms because it contains the notion of 'successor', though that can be generated by an ordering procedure. |
10877 | Powers: All the subsets of a given set form their own new powerset [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Powers: For each set there exists a collection of sets that contains amongst its elements all the subsets of the given set. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: Obviously this must include the whole of the base set (i.e. not just 'proper' subsets), otherwise the new set would just be a duplicate of the base set. |
10879 | Choice: For every set a mechanism will choose one member of any non-empty subset [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Choice: For every set we can provide a mechanism for choosing one member of any non-empty subset of the set. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: This axiom is unusual because it makes the bold claim that such a 'mechanism' can always be found. Cohen showed that this axiom is separate. The tricky bit is choosing from an infinite subset. |
10871 | Axiom of Existence: there exists at least one set [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Existence: there exists at least one set. This may be the empty set, but you need to start with something. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
10874 | Specification: a condition applied to a set will always produce a new set [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Axiom of Specification: For every set and every condition, there corresponds a set whose elements are exactly the same as those elements of the original set for which the condition is true. So the concept 'number is even' produces a set from the integers. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) | |
A reaction: What if the condition won't apply to the set? 'Number is even' presumably won't produce a set if it is applied to a set of non-numbers. |
11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
17896 | We need to know the meaning of 'and', prior to its role in reasoning [Prior,AN, by Belnap] |
Full Idea: For Prior, so the moral goes, we must first have a notion of what 'and' means, independently of the role it plays as premise and as conclusion. | |
From: report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Nuel D. Belnap - Tonk, Plonk and Plink p.132 | |
A reaction: The meaning would be given by the truth tables (the truth-conditions), whereas the role would be given by the natural deduction introduction and elimination rules. This seems to be the basic debate about logical connectives. |
17898 | Prior's 'tonk' is inconsistent, since it allows the non-conservative inference A |- B [Belnap on Prior,AN] |
Full Idea: Prior's definition of 'tonk' is inconsistent. It gives us an extension of our original characterisation of deducibility which is not conservative, since in the extension (but not the original) we have, for arbitrary A and B, A |- B. | |
From: comment on Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Nuel D. Belnap - Tonk, Plonk and Plink p.135 | |
A reaction: Belnap's idea is that connectives don't just rest on their rules, but also on the going concern of normal deduction. |
11021 | Prior rejected accounts of logical connectives by inference pattern, with 'tonk' his absurd example [Prior,AN, by Read] |
Full Idea: Prior dislike the holism inherent in the claim that the meaning of a logical connective was determined by the inference patterns into which it validly fitted. ...His notorious example of 'tonk' (A → A-tonk-B → B) was a reductio of the view. | |
From: report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960]) by Stephen Read - Thinking About Logic Ch.8 | |
A reaction: [The view being attacked was attributed to Gentzen] |
13836 | Maybe introducing or defining logical connectives by rules of inference leads to absurdity [Prior,AN, by Hacking] |
Full Idea: Prior intended 'tonk' (a connective which leads to absurdity) as a criticism of the very idea of introducing or defining logical connectives by rules of inference. | |
From: report of Arthur N. Prior (The Runabout Inference Ticket [1960], §09) by Ian Hacking - What is Logic? |
11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
10880 | Mathematics can be 'pure' (unapplied), 'real' (physically grounded); or 'applied' (just applicable) [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Three views of mathematics: 'pure' mathematics, where it doesn't matter if it could ever have any application; 'real' mathematics, where every concept must be physically grounded; and 'applied' mathematics, using the non-real if the results are real. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.17) | |
A reaction: Very helpful. No one can deny the activities of 'pure' mathematics, but I think it is undeniable that the origins of the subject are 'real' (rather than platonic). We do economics by pretending there are concepts like the 'average family'. |
10861 | Beyond infinity cardinals and ordinals can come apart [Clegg] |
Full Idea: With ordinary finite numbers ordinals and cardinals are in effect the same, but beyond infinity it is possible for two sets to have the same cardinality but different ordinals. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
10860 | An ordinal number is defined by the set that comes before it [Clegg] |
Full Idea: You can think of an ordinal number as being defined by the set that comes before it, so, in the non-negative integers, ordinal 5 is defined as {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.13) |
10854 | Transcendental numbers can't be fitted to finite equations [Clegg] |
Full Idea: The 'transcendental numbers' are those irrationals that can't be fitted to a suitable finite equation, of which π is far and away the best known. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch. 6) |
10858 | By adding an axis of imaginary numbers, we get the useful 'number plane' instead of number line [Clegg] |
Full Idea: The realisation that brought 'i' into the toolkit of physicists and engineers was that you could extend the 'number line' into a new dimension, with an imaginary number axis at right angles to it. ...We now have a 'number plane'. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.12) |
10853 | Either lack of zero made early mathematics geometrical, or the geometrical approach made zero meaningless [Clegg] |
Full Idea: It is a chicken-and-egg problem, whether the lack of zero forced forced classical mathematicians to rely mostly on a geometric approach to mathematics, or the geometric approach made 0 a meaningless concept, but the two remain strongly tied together. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch. 6) |
10866 | Cantor's account of infinities has the shaky foundation of irrational numbers [Clegg] |
Full Idea: As far as Kronecker was concerned, Cantor had built a whole structure on the irrational numbers, and so that structure had no foundation at all. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
10869 | The Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory [Clegg] |
Full Idea: Paul Cohen showed that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.15) |
10862 | The 'continuum hypothesis' says aleph-one is the cardinality of the reals [Clegg] |
Full Idea: The 'continuum hypothesis' says that aleph-one is the cardinality of the rational and irrational numbers. | |
From: Brian Clegg (Infinity: Quest to Think the Unthinkable [2003], Ch.14) |
11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |